Causes of Teacher s Favoritism and Its Effects on …...Ismail Aydogan (2009) explored and evaluated favoritism in the Turkish educational system. He recommends that favoritism should

Global Social Sciences Review (GSSR) URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2018(III-II).21

p-ISSN 2520-0348, e-ISSN 2616-793X DOI: 10.31703/gssr.2018(III-II).21

Vol. III, No. II (Spring 2018) Page: 369 - 384

Abstract

Causes of Teacher’s Favoritism and Its Effects on the University

Students: A Case Study

Amjad Ali* Dost Muhammad Khan† Mujeeb Hussain‡

This study aims at exploring and examining

the causes of teacher’s favoritism and its effects

on the university students. Quantitative tools are applied to

collect data for the study and to check its reliability. The results

of the data reveal that the teachers favor the students on the

basis of gender, race, area, similar political ideology and

family/blood relation. The study also indicates that a teacher’s

favoritism in the class affects boldness, mutual trust and respects

between students and teacher which results in the student’s

struggle for favoritism instead of studies and academic

achievements. Moreover, the students may opt for leaving the

institute in which favoritism exists. The study also shows that

both male & female students have the same opinions regarding

different factors and effects of favoritism. The study concludes

that the students’ flair, potential, abilities and academic

achievements should be emphasized as essential criteria for

testing and evaluating the students’ academic performance. It

will, further, compel the students to focus on their studies, rather

than on gaining teacher’s favor.

Key Words:

Teacher’s

Favoritism,

Causes,

Effects,

Semester

System,

University

Students

Introduction

A teacher can perform a very constructive role for his students. His teaching

methods, attitude and behavior guide the students to gain a sound personality that

will help them to build a better career and forming a new clear world-view. Study

conducted by Ulug, M. et al. (2011) reveals that a teacher’s negative attitude

includes discrediting, revenge, strict discipline, lack of interest, favoritism,

annoyance, unkindness, narrow-mindedness, misunderstanding and

unpredictability. In this study, favoritism is considered as negative attitude. The

study concludes that the teacher’s positive behavior has positive effects on the

students’ career building and personality development, whereas negative

behavior has a negative impact on both the students’ performance and character-

*Assistant Professor, Department of Statistics, Islamia College, Peshawar, KP, Pakistan.

Email: [email protected] †Assistant Professor, Department of Statistics, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan, Mardan, KP,

Pakistan. ‡MPhil. Scholar (Statistics), Department of Statistics Islamia College, Peshawar, KP, Pakistan.

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2018(III-II).21

mailto:[email protected]

https://badge.dimensions.ai/details/id/pub.1107333288?domain=https://gssrjournal.com

https://gssrjournal.com/jadmin/Auther/31rvIolA2LALJouq9hkR/citations/OMyzUXLT05.pdf

https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.31703/gssr.2018(III-II).21&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-06-30

Amjad Ali, Dost Muhammad Khan and Mujeeb Hussain

370 Global Social Sciences Review (GSSR)

building. Moreover, the teacher’s positive behavior has positive effect on the

students’ personality and practical performance.

Favoritism means to give undue honor to a person or to show favor to

him/her in a matter for which he/she does not have the required abilities and

potentials. Favoritism leads to the promotion of some incompetent people who

are, then, employed in various walks of life (Employee Favoritism, 2006). In

favoritism, personal likes and dislikes of the teachers are involved in decision-

making. The authorities favor likeable persons (Kwon, 2005).

Hussain, N. et al. (2013) argue that non-involvement in any sort of favoritism

is a peculiarity of a positive teacher-student relationship. The teacher should be

impartial in assessing the students’ academic excellence. He/she should avoid

discrimination by treating the students equally. Positivity in teacher-student

relationship develops mutual understanding, respect, self-confidence and

obedience between the teacher and the students. This also improves mutual trust

and understanding between teacher and student. According to him, if no

favoritism exists on the basis of gender, cast, race etc., and then it will create

confidence in the student, enable him/her to learn easily, and no grievance will

prevail in their learning environment.

Semester system is also a factor due to which favoritism happens. Rana, A.

M. K et.al. (2013), explored that semester system can also lead to nepotism and

favoritism. Their study displays that 90% students advocated the importance of

semester system which raised the standard of education by developing inventive

power in the students and making them more dynamic. Demerits of the semester

system are also highlighted in their study. They conclude that 56% students

confirmed the demerit of the semester system as it creates flatterers of their

teachers. This system lets students to move towards teachers for favors (Rana, A.

M. K et al., 2013).

According to O'Reilly, R. (1975), one of the reasons of the pupils’ low self-

concept in academic achievement is favoritism. Academic achievement is a level

of aptitude achieved in education or a properly gained knowledge which is

frequently represented by percentage of marks taken by students in an assessment

in school subjects (Kohli, 1975).

Karip (2002) argue that for eliminating biasness, the teachers should adopt

the same rules and regulations for everyone. It will enable the teachers to use

their authority easily and without any difficulty. It will also be clarified to the

students that the teacher is not involved in any sort of favoritism. Ismail Aydogan

(2009) explored and evaluated favoritism in the Turkish educational system. He

recommends that favoritism should be discouraged at every level in the

education. However, abilities, qualities and achievements of the candidate should

be stressed as essential and necessary criterion.

Regarding education system, few studies have been conducted on favoritism

which relate to schools and the Ministry of Education’s central organization. No

Causes of Teacher’s Favoritism and Its Effects on the University Students: A Case Study

Vol. III, No. II (Spring 2018) 371

qualitative or quantitative study has been conducted regarding universities

(Aydogan, 2012). Favoritism is such a sensitive issue that can badly affect the

performance of the students as well as teachers in future. It can discourage the

hard working students and their goals, and may upraise the apprehension of

failure even before attempting. In Pakistan, favoritism also exists in the

universities and especially in semester system. The current study deals with

investigating the negative impact of favoritism in the public sector universities of

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan), and discovering the major determinants of this

evil/issue in the institutions.

Methodology

To investigate the causes of teacher’s favoritism and its effects on the university

students, a case study was conducted. And through survey technique, with the

help of well-designed questionnaires, the data were gathered. The data analyzed

through statistical software SPSS. For analyzing the data, descriptive statistics,

Reliability analysis, Odds Ratios, Ordinal Logistics Regression, Kendall’s tau-b

and Chi-Square Test are used.

Subject of the study are the students of all public sector universities in

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan). As the whole list of the respondents getting

higher education from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa universities was hard to collect,

therefore, a sample size of 778 respondents were selected from the 19 public

sector universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by using Proportional Allocation

Procedure and Stratified Random Sampling. In the first step, sample size “n” is

selected from the “sample size table” by Krejci R.V et al. (1970) on the basis of

population size “N". In the second step, sample size in is selected from each

university on the basis of proportional allocation procedure.

Research Instrument

The study was conducted on the basis of primary data. Interview

schedule/questionnaire was used as research tool for the collection of data that is

desired for the study. The Questionnaire was designed for the students so that it

could cover all the objectives of the study. The questionnaire was developed by

using five-point likert scale on the basis of literature, related studies and under

the guidance of supervisor. Where 1 stands to “strongly disagree” and 5 stands to

“strongly agree”. Cronbach’s alpha is used for reliability of the questionnaire.

The value of Cronbach’s alpha is 0.843 which is indicative of the reliability of

the questionnaire.



Results and Interpretations

The prime aim of this study is to investigate the causes of teacher’s favoritism

and its effects on the university students. The data, collected through research

instruments, are tabulated, analyzed and interpreted in the light of the objectives

of the study. Results with their interpretations are presented in the following

subtopics.

Ordinal Logistic Regression

To study different causes of teacher’s favoritism, ordinal logistic regression is

used. First, the model fitting information was studied by comparing a model with

the baseline against the model with all the explanatory variables. The final model

is compared against the baseline in order to see whether it has significantly

improved the fit to the data. The results are given in the following table:

Table 1. Model Fitting Information

Model -2 Log Likelihood Chi-Square Df Sig.

Intercept

Only

Final

2261.877

192064

341.812

36

00

Link function: Logit.

The Model fitting Information of the above table gives the -2 log-likelihood (-

2LL) values for the baseline and the final model. The significant chi-square

statistic (p<.05) indicates that the final model gives a significant improvement

over the baseline model. This reveals in the table that the model provides better

predictions than the one based on the marginal probabilities for the outcome

categories.

Estimation of Ordinal Regression Model

The parameter estimates and their p-values, using ordinal regression model for

different causes of teacher’s favoritism, are given in the following table:



Estimate Std.

Error Wald Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval exp(β)

LB UB

Threshold

[TF = 1] -5.467 .511 114.539 .000 -6.468 -4.466 0.0042

[TF = 2] -4.231 .500 71.715 .000 -5.210 -3.252 0.013

[TF = 3] -3.676 .496 54.969 .000 -4.648 -2.704 0.025

[TF = 4] -1.326 .480 7.648 .006 -2.266 -.386 0.26

Location

[OG=1] 1.742 .335 27.013 .000 1.085 2.400 5.70

[OG=2] .824 .253 10.568 .001 .327 1.320 2.27

OG=3] .140 .252 .310 .045 -.353 .633 1.15

[OG=4] .468 .210 4.987 .026 .057 .879 1.60

[OG=5] 0a . . . . .

[OR=1] -1.384 .286 23.427 .000 -1.945 -.824 0.25

[OR=2] -.446 .261 2.925 .087 -.956 .065 0.64

[OR=3] -.086 .267 .103 .749 -.610 .438 0.91

[OR=4] -.081 .226 .127 .721 -.524 .363 0.92

[OR=5] 0a . . . . .

[OA=1] -.989 .289 11.711 .001 -1.555 -.422 0.37

[OA=2] -.972 .255 14.513 .000 -1.473 -.472 0.38

[OA=3] -.988 .264 13.958 .000 -1.506 -.469 0.37

[OA=4] -.604 .236 6.551 .010 -1.066 -.141 0.54

[OA=5] 0a . . . . .

[Gf=1] -.077 .261 .087 .768 -.588 .434 0.92

[Gf =2] -.322 .266 1.471 .225 -.843 .198 0.72

[Gf =3] .087 .296 .085 .770 -.495 .668 1.09

[Gf=4] -.251 .273 .846 .358 -.787 .284 0.78

[Gf=5] 0a . . . . .

[ES=1] -.230 .346 .443 .506 -.907 .447 0.80

[ES=2] .130 .341 .145 .703 -.539 .799 1.13

[ES=3] -.010 .354 .001 .978 -.704 .684 1.99

[ES=4] .088 .348 .064 .800 -.594 .771 0.91

[ES=5] 0a . . . . .



[SPI=1] -.848 .400 4.507 .054 -1.632 -.065 0.42

[SPI=2] -.552 .382 2.087 .109 -1.300 .197 0.59

[SPI=3] -.334 .382 .762 .383 -1.082 .415 0.71

[SPI=4] .116 .379 .094 .760 -.627 .860 1.12

[SPI=5] 0a . . . . .

[SRI=1] -1.275 .353 13.033 .000 -1.968 -.583 0.28

[SRI=2] -.705 .334 4.460 .035 -1.360 -.051 0.50

[SRI=3] -.536 .344 2.419 .120 -1.210 .139 0.58

[SRI=4] -.385 .331 1.353 .245 -1.033 .264 0.68

[SRI=5] 0a . . . . .

[BL=1] -.450 .274 2.707 .010 -.987 .086 0.64

[BL=2] -.304 .246 1.527 .021 -.787 .178 0.74

[BL=3] -1.142 .283 16.323 .000 -1.696 -.588 0.31

[BL=4] -.456 .216 4.446 .035 -.880 -.032 0.63

[BL=5] 0a . . . . .

[PA=1] -.581 .264 4.826 .028 -1.098 -.063 0.56

[PA=2] -1.139 .252 20.413 .000 -1.633 -.645 0.32

[PA=3] -1.232 .299 16.952 .000 -1.818 -.645 0.29

[PA=4] -.314 .278 1.276 .259 -.859 .231 0.73

[PA=5] 0a . . . . .

Link function: Logit.

This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.

The above table shows the output of ordinal logistic regression model where logit

is used as a link function. In the table, the output of parameter estimates indicates

the relationship between the response variable, Teacher’s Favoritism (TF) and

different explanatory variables. The threshold coefficients just represent the

intercepts, especially the point (in terms of logit) where favoritism might be

predicted into the higher categories. The parameter estimates table summarizes

the effect of each predictor.

From the table, the p-value for all categories of the predictor variable

“Opposite Gender” (OG) is less than 0.05 (i.e. P<0.05).Thus, we conclude that

the variable OG is significant. It means that there is relationship between the

response variable TF and the explanatory variable OG. In other words, it can be

argued that female teachers are more inclined to favor male students, and male



teachers are more tended to favor female students.

The ordered logit for the category SDA being in the response variable

“Teacher’s Favoritism” category is 1.742, with an odds ratio of 5.70, which

means that for OG, the respondents are 5.70 times more in favor of high level of

agreement with “Teacher’s Favoritism”. Similarly, order logit for the DA

category of OG being in the response variable “Teacher’s favoritism” is 0.824,

with an odds ratio of 2.27, which means that, the respondents are 2.27 times more

in favor of moderate level of agreement with the “Teacher’s Favoritism”. The

order logit for the category UD category is 0.140 and odds ratio is 1.15, which

means that for OG the respondents are 1.15 times more in favor of neutral level

of agreement with the “Teacher’s Favoritism”. For Agree category, the ordered

logit is 0.468 and odds ratio is 1.6, which means that for OG, the respondents are

1.6 times more in favor of moderate level of disagreement with the “Teacher’s

Favoritism”.

The table verifies that there is some relationship between the variable TF and

the explanatory variables Own Race (OR) & Similar Religious Ideology (SRI).

As for some categories, P < 0.05 for both variables, so it is concluded that the

variable OR and SRI has some contribution in the model on the empirical

grounds.


“Teacher’s Favoritism” category is -1.384, with an odds ratio of 0.25, which

means that for OR, the respondents are 0.25 times more in favor of high level of


category of OR being in the response variable “Teacher’s favoritism” is -0.446,



order logit for the category UD category is -0.086 and odds ratio is 0.91, which

means that for OR the respondents are 0.91 times more in favor of neutral level


logit is -0.081 and odds ratio is 0.92, which means that for OR, the respondents

are 0.92 times more in favor of moderate level of disagreement with the

“Teacher’s Favoritism”. Similarly, for the variable SRI, the ordered logit for the

category SDA being in the response variable “Teacher’s Favoritism” category is

–1.275, with an odds ratio of 0.28, which means that for SRI, the respondents are

0.28 times more in favor of high level of agreement with “Teacher’s Favoritism”.

Similarly, order logit for the DA category of SRI being in the response variable

“Teacher’s favoritism” is -0.705, with an odds ratio of 0.50, which means that,

the respondents are 0.50times more in favor of moderate level of agreement with

the “Teacher’s Favoritism”. The order logit for the category UD category is -

0.536 and odds ratio is 0.58, which means that for SRI the respondents are 0.58

times more in favor of neutral level of agreement with the “Teacher’s

Favoritism”. For Agree category, the ordered logit is -0.385 and odds ratio is



0.68, which means that for SRI, the respondents are 0.68 times more in favor of

moderate level of disagreement with the “Teacher’s Favoritism”.

The explanatory variable “own area” (OA) in the table shows that the teacher

favors those students who belong to the same area of the teacher. The table

reveals that all the categories of the variable OA are significant (i.e. P < 0.05). It

means that the explanatory variable OA has significant relation with the response

variable TF.



means that for OA, the respondents are0.37times more in favor of high level of


category of OA being in the response variable “Teacher’s favoritism” is -0.972,




means that for OA the respondents are 0.37 times more in favor of neutral level


logit is -0.604 and odds ratio is 0.54, which means that for OA, the respondents


“Teacher’s Favoritism”.

Gift (Gf) and economic status (ES) are the explanatory variables that are

included in the model to identify if the teacher’s favoritism occurs due to these

variables. The study reveals that there is insignificant relationship between the

variable TF and Gf & ES as all the categories of both the response variables are

insignificant. So, it is concluded that there is no contribution due to these

variables in the model.



means that for Gf , the respondents are 0.92times more in favor of high level of


category of Gf being in the response variable “Teacher’s favoritism” is -0.332,

with an odds ratio of 0.72, which means that the respondents are 0.72 times more


order logit for the category UD category is 0.087 and odds ratio is 1.09, which

means that for Gf the respondents are 1.09 times more in favor of neutral level of

agreement with the “Teacher’s Favoritism”. For Agree category, the ordered logit

is -0.251 and odds ratio is 0.78, which means that for Gf, the respondents are


Favoritism”. Similarly, for the variable ES, the ordered logit for the category

SDA being in the response variable “Teacher’s Favoritism” category is -0.230,

with an odds ratio of 0.80, which means that for ES, the respondents are

0.80times more in favor of high level of agreement with “Teacher’s Favoritism”.



Similarly, order logit for the DA category of ES being in the response variable

“Teacher’s favoritism” is 0.130, with an odds ratio of 1.13, which means that, the

respondents are 1.13 times more in favor of moderate level of agreement with the

“Teacher’s Favoritism”. The order logit for the category UD category is -0.010

and odds ratio is 1.99, which means that for ES the respondents are 1.99 times

more in favor of neutral level of agreement with the “Teacher’s Favoritism”. For

Agree category, the ordered logit is 0.088 and odds ratio is 0.91, which means

that for ES, the respondents are 0.91 times more in favor of moderate level of

disagreement with the “Teacher’s Favoritism”.

Similar Political Ideology (SPI) of the teacher and student is also another

cause/factor due to which favoritism exists. The above output table of ordinal

logistic regression displays that there is no single category of the variable SPI

that is significant on its own. Only two categories are marginally significant.

Usually, such a variable is worth keeping in the model as the small effects of

each category accumulate and provide useful information to the model. So, it is

concluded that the variable Similar Political ideology (SPI) of the teacher and

student has some contribution in the model.



means that for SPI, the respondents are 0.42 times more in favor of high level of


category of SPI being in the response variable “Teacher’s favoritism” is -0.552,




means that for SPI the respondents are 0.71 times more in favor of neutral level


logit is 0.116 and odds ratio is 1.12, which means that for SPI, the respondents


“Teacher’s Favoritism”.

Blood Relation (BL) between parents and teachers make a difference in

teacher’s behaviors and it can lead to the problem of teacher’s favoritism with the

students. The above table clarifies that the p-value for all categories of the

predictor variable BL is significant, i.e. (P < 0.05). So it is conclusive to argue we

conclude that there is relationship between the response variable, Teacher’s

Favoritism and BL.



means that for BL, the respondents are 0.64times more in favor of high level of


category of BL being in the response variable “Teacher’s favoritism” is -0.304,






means that for BL the respondents are 0.31times more in favor of neutral level of


is -0.456 and odds ratio is 0.63, which means that for BL, the respondents are


Favoritism”.

Physical appearance of the students may also be a factor due to which

favoritism occurs in the class room. In the current study, it is confirmed through

ordinal logistic regression that most of the categories are significant. Thus, it can

be argued that the relationship between teacher’s favoritism and good-looking

students exists.



means that for PA, the respondents are 0.56times more in favor of high level of


category of PA being in the response variable “Teacher’s favoritism” is -1.139,




means that for PA the respondents are 0.29 times more in favor of neutral level of


is -0.314 and odds ratio is 0.73, which means that for PA, the respondents are


Favoritism”.

Chi-Square Test

There are various effects which occur due to favoritism. In this study, chi-square

test is used to study different effects of teacher’s favoritism. The results are given

in the following table:

Table. Effects of Favoritism

Variables Chi-Square

Value

P-

Value

Boldness (Bd) 222.32 000

Mutual Trust (MT) 178.95 000

Mutual Respect (MR) 94.77 000

Work for Favoritism instead of Study (WF) 168.26 000

Learning Environment (LE) 66.45 000

Whole Education System (WES) 78.70 000

Career (Cr) 2278 000



Discuss Favoritism other Students/Parents(DF) 3.2 0.57

Discourage Youngers to Take Admission (DY) 2.1 0.300

Marks Affected effect in Previous Sem(ME) 243.75 000

Marks effect in the Coming Semesters(ME) 182.58 000

Students Leave/Migrate/Cancel Admission (CA) 68.47 000

The above table shows the analysis of the effects of different variables which

occur due to the teacher’s favoritism. Chi-square test is used to analyze the

effects of favoritism on students. The table shows Chi-square values and

significant values for each variable.

The table shows that the χ² value for variable “Boldness” is 222.32 which is

high, and also the P-value is less than the 5% level of significant value. It means

that the variable Bd is significant. This means that boldness of the students is

affected if favoritism exists in the class. The table alsoindicates that the chi-

square value for the variable MT and MR is high, and the P-value is significant.

So, it is concluded that mutual trust and mutual respect between the student and

the teacher will be affected due to favoritism in the class.

The chi-square value for the variable “work for favoritism instead of study”

is also high. So the said variable is significant. It means that when favoritism

exists in the class, the student will not focus on hard work. They will attempt to

find the means through which the teacher could favor them in order to obtain

good academic grade. The table also shows that the p-value for the variables LE,

WES and Cr is also significant. It means that when favoritism exists in the class,

the learning environment as well as the whole education system will be affected.

The significance of the variable Career (Cr) shows that when teacher’s favoritism

exists in the class, then marks of the hardworking students will be affected, and it

will further, affect the career of the student in future.

Moreover, table shows that the chi-square values for the variables “Discuss

Favoritism with other students/parents” (DF) and “Discourage Youngers” (DY)

are small, and the p-values for both the variables are insignificant, i.e. P > 0.05. It

means that if favoritism exists in the class, then there is no effect on both the

variables DF and DY.

The table also shows the chi-square and P-values for the variables “Marks

Effected in Previous Semester” (ME), “Marks Effected in Coming Semesters”

(ME) and “Students Leave/Migrate/Cancel Admission” (CA). All the variables

i.e. marks affected in previous & coming semesters and CA, have P-values less

than 5% level of significance. Thus, it is concluded that all three variables are

significant. It means that a “Teacher’s Favoritism” not only affects the previous

marks, but also builds the students worry low percentage of marks in the coming

semester. Likewise, when favoritism exists, the students will migrate to other

institutes where favoritism does not exist.



Comparing Responses of Male and Female Regarding Causes &Effects of

Favoritism

Variables Test statistics Male Female

Opposite

Gender

ᵪ2 51.78 45.58

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.80

Own Race

ᵪ2 97.98 58.84

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.64

Own Area

ᵪ2 61.78 43.58

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) .96

Gifts

ᵪ2 3.06 3.50

P-Value .37< .05 .24< .05

Correlation(r) 0.74

Economic Status

ᵪ2 64.30 74.94

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) .86

Similar Political

Ideology

ᵪ2 2.54 3.62

P-Value .34< .05 .23< .05

Correlation(r) .95

Similar

Religious

Ideology

ᵪ2 3.45 2.73

P-Value .44< .05 .23< .05

Correlation(r) 0.78

Family/Blood

Relation

ᵪ2 67.64 87.4

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.97

Physical

Attraction

ᵪ2 3.50 2.27

P-Value .23< .05 .43< .05

Correlation(r) 0.85



The Chi square values for all the variables in the above table for both male and

female respondents are large, and P-value is less than the significance value of

Boldness

ᵪ2 63.48 84.35

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.78

Mutual Trust

ᵪ2 86.28 192.78

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.99

Mutual Respect

ᵪ2 191.34 169.34

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.65

Work for

Favoritism

instead of Study

ᵪ2 20.52 36.0

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) -0.035

Learning

Environment

ᵪ2 188.18 247.25

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.24

Whole

Education

System

ᵪ2 288.93 278.49

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.97

Career

ᵪ2 93.51 74.22

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.88

Discussion of

Favoritism with

other

Students/Parents

ᵪ2 93.43 141.91

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.71

Discourage

Youngsters

ᵪ2 104.99 87.38

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.94

Marks effect

ᵪ2 30.47 37.26

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.66

Mark effect in

the Coming

Semester

ᵪ2 83.07 48.26

P-Value .000 < .05 .000 < .05

Correlation(r) 0.95



0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, and it is concluded that both male

and female students have same opinions regarding these variables. Similarly,

there is a strong positive correlation between the responses of male and female

respondents for the variables, teachers’ opposite gender, teachers ‘own area,

economic status, similar political ideology, family/blood relation, physical

attraction, mutual trust, whole education system, career and marks. It reveals that

both male and female students are agreed to the given statement of the teacher’s

favoritism due to these variables.

Findings and Conclusion

The current study was carried out to investigate the causes of teacher’s favoritism

and its effects on the university students. In this study the variables were

partitioned into two groups. One group relates to the factors or causes of

favoritism, and another group deals with the effects of favoritism. Data were

collected from both male and female students of all the public sector universities

of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

Main Findings

Data were obtained from 778 students and was analyzed and interpreted. The

following findings are drawn:

In order to analyze the causes of favoritism, ordinal logistic regression was

used. According to model fitting information, the significant chi-square statistic

(p<.05) indicates that the final model gives a significant improvement over the

baseline model. This proves that the model gives better predictions than the one

guessed based on the marginal probabilities for the outcome categories.

From the parameter estimates table, it is detected that all the categories of the

variables OG, OA, BL and PA are significant while some categories of the

variables OR and SRI are also significant. It means that these variables have

contribution in the model. The results also reveal that the variables Gf and ES are

insignificant. It is also observed from the analysis that no single category of the

variable SPI is significant on its own. Only two categories are marginally

significant.

The analysis reveals that the variable Bd, MT, MR, WF, LE, WES, Cr, CA

and ME have significant association with the response variable TF. It means that

these variables are affected due to favoritism. It was also discovered that the

variables DF and DY are insignificant which means that there is no effect of

teacher’s favoritism on these variables.

The analysis shows that no difference in the opinions was found between

male and female students regarding the significance of different variables of

causes and effects of teacher’s favoritism. In other words, both were agreed with



the characteristics of teacher’s behavior during instruction and assessment. The

results of the analysis by Kendaull’s tau-b show that high correlation value of

above 0.84 was found between the opinions of male and females for the variables

Ar, ES, SPI, BL, MT, WES, DY Cr, PA and marks.

Conclusion

The aim of this study is to determine the causes of teacher’s favoritism and its

effect on the universities’ students of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan). The

variables in the study were divided into two parts. One is related to the

factors/causes due to which favoritism occurs, and another is concerned with the

effects of favoritism on the students. For the determination of causes of

favoritism, ordinal logistic regression was used, and for the effects, chi-square

test was used for the association of effects with favoritism. Students in the

universities accept the existence of teacher’s favoritism in the classroom. The

study reveals different causes/factors of favoritism which include own race, same

area of teacher and student, similar political ideology, blood relation and physical

attraction. These variables have significant relationship with the response

variable “teacher’s favoritism”, and these variables make a big difference in the

teacher’s behavior. Another significant relation was found between the response

variable and the explanatory variable, opposite gender. Teachers are influenced

and impressed by the gender of the student. Both male and female teachers are

more inclined to favor the students belonging to opposite gender. Students

confirm that the effects of teacher’s favoritism on students include mutual trust,

mutual respect between student and teacher, boldness, work for favoritism

instead of hardwork and effect on whole education system. It is also concluded

that favoritism affects the academic achievement of the student as the study

reveals that favoritism affects marks of the hardworking students. The opinion of

male and female students regarding different causes and effects of favoritism was

similar. In other words, they were agreed with the characteristics and behavior

during instruction and assessment. A high correlation value of above 0.84 was

found between the opinions of males and females for the variables: area,

economic status, and similar political ideology blood relation, mutual trust,

whole education system and discourage youngers to take admission at an institute

where favoritism exists.



References

Aydogon, I. (2012). The existence of favoritism in organizations. African Journal

of Business Management, 6(12), 4577.

Aydogan, I. (2009). Favoritism in the Turkish Educational System: Nepotism,

Cronyism and Patronage. Online Submission, 4(1).

Bhushan, V. (1985). Relationship of Teacher Attitude to the Environment of

His/Her Class.

Employee Favoritism (2006). Retrieved August 10, 2006, from

http://www.anonymousemployee.com/csssite /sidelinks/ employeef

avoritism .php.

Hussain, N., Nawaz, B., Nasir, S., Kiani, N., &Hussain, M. (2013).Positive

Teacher-Student Relationship and Teachers Experience-A Teacher’s

Perspective. Global Journal of Management and Business

Research, 13(3).

Karip, E. (2002). Sinifyonetimi (class management). Ankara: Pegem A.

Kohli, T. K. (1975). Characteristic Behavioural and Environmental correlates of

Academic Achievement of over and Under Achievers at different levels

of intelligence. Punjab University, unpublished Ph. D. Unpublished Ph.

D. thesis, Chandigarh, Panjab University, Deptt. Of Edu.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research

activities. EducPsychol Meas.

Kwon, I. (2005). Endogenous favoritism in organizations, topics in theoretical

economics, 10 Ekim 2006.

O'Reilly, R. (1975). Classroom climate and achievement in secondary school

mathematics classes.

Rana, A. M. K., &Perveen, U. (2013). A study to investigate the views of punjab

university students regarding semester system in pakistan. Asian journal

of social sciences & humanities, 2(2), 79-83.

Ulug, M., Ozden, M. S., &Eryilmaz, A. (2011). The Effects of Teachers’

Attitudes on Students’ Personality and Performance. Procedia-Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 738-742.

http://www.anonymousemployee.com/csssite%20/sidelinks/%20employeef%20avoritism%20.php

http://www.anonymousemployee.com/csssite%20/sidelinks/%20employeef%20avoritism%20.php

Documents

Causes of Teacher s Favoritism and Its Effects on …...Ismail Aydogan (2009) explored and evaluated favoritism in the Turkish educational system. He recommends that favoritism should